the... well, defining the arguments and assumptions...

This is a long philosophical posting. However, it is part of the thoughts in my head. It is also indirectly a great example of some of the corrective techniques I use since this philosophy developed as a result of it. (sorry - just went ADHD and massively emotional.... nice talks, LDW!)
Okay, I thought I would start of with letting you know where I'm coming from with part of this argument.

There are two "companion polar pairs" that I look at quit often when thinking of how to describe this style of thinking I have as the result of what is described as "mixed states Bipolar Disorder: There is the logical/illogical set, and the rational/irrational set. The pairs usually match, but are not always equal nor necessarily related.
For the logical/illogical pair, I use the typical meanings used in social context. For example, logic follows a given pattern with set rules that are independent of the assumptions. Assumptions are then made, and if the conclusion follows the logical patterns set, then it is valid. It is the train of thought itself which must be analyzed for inconsistencies or failure to follow the patterns. Any logical form can be chosen, but part of the philosophical argument must be why that form applies in this situation. For example, given the algebraic rules and a few assumptions of simple quantity (number 'value'), one can develop the rest of the number system. (define the number 1: you get all of the integers. From there, you can define fractions in an analogous sense, then define whole numbers, ratios, trigonometry, geometry.... This is what I am considering as Basic Logic.

What I would consider as the Basic Illogical in this sense can come about in two ways, but the reason, from an epistemological or methodological sense, is very similar. Either through a misapplication of the rules you set up, for example, accidently adding when you should subtract. There are also the "assumption leaps", where even though as an assumption it is technically correct, the series of causality in reaching that assumption can be too great or too subjective.
Okay, here is where I think it's going to get really confusing. I'm not sure I understand it all, let alone know exactly how to explain what I think I understand about myself... excuse me while I clean the keyboard, all...

Im back, back in the New York Grove... anyhoo, the next part. While the two sets are opposites, the opposites are not necessarily exclusive of the others. For example, the irrational response to jerk away the hand when you near something hot. That is a logical response, for the consequences are ones you don't wish to suffer. On the other hand, the catatonic state of the fight or flight situation is not logical, because a valid conclusion is that it makes it easier for the situation to harm you or be fatal. That's illogical - you set yourself into a position where the instinct that is active - the SURVIVAL instinct, creates a response which fails it's purpose. Like rationalizing suicide. It is truly illogical for a species NOT to have a survival and perpetuation instincts, therefore the rationalization has to be illogical. Somewhere in the irrational state, responses and perceptions where twisted or created which caused an incorrect interpretation of the current common reality.

Since the irrational can be illogical (as can be the rational), there has to be a test. The test is objectivity through common language, defined processes, and recording of information and examination of patterns. This can be done rationally or irrationally, depending on the source and subject. Therefore, we need the external empirical "secular" aspects to be able to communicate on common ground - the same word, sentence, paragraph, page, edition, printing date, etc.... get my drift?

So here is a phrase I'll try to see if it helps:

So in this case, the irrational needs to at least be logical, and the logical needs to be at least empirically objective.